Xerox Corporation v. Craig Nelson
Claim Number: FA1201001424895
Complainant is Xerox Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Craig Nelson (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <documate.com>, registered with Go Daddy.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 17, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 20, 2012.
On January 17, 2012, Go Daddy confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <documate.com> domain name is registered with Go Daddy and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 24, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@documate.com. Also on January 24, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 17, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <documate.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DOCUMATE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <documate.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <documate.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Xerox Corporation, owns multiple trademark registrations for its DOCUMATE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,979,123 registered July 26, 2005). Complainant uses its DOCUMATE mark in connection with a line of its scanner products.
Respondent, Craig Nelson, registered the <documate.com> domain name on June 22, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked website that contains third-party hyperlinks, including hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant provided the Panel with evidence of its trademark registrations with the USPTO for its DOCUMATE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,979,123 registered July 26, 2005). The Panel deems this evidence sufficient to hold that Complainant owns rights in its DOCUMATE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <documate.com> domain name only differs from Complainant’s DOCUMATE mark in the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” As the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, the Panel holds that Respondent’s <documate.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DOCUMATE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <termquote.com> is identical to the complainant’s TERMQUOTE mark).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <documate.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests when Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations. The Panel finds Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <documate.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Respondent does not present any arguments or evidence that it is commonly known by the <documate.com> domain name as Respondent did not respond to this case. The WHOIS information identifies “Craig Nelson” as the registrant of the <documate.com> domain name. Complainant claims that Respondent does not operate a business under the disputed domain name. Based on this evidence, the Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the <documate.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <documate.com> domain name resolves to a website hosting third-party hyperlinks, some of which resolve to Complainant’s competitors’ websites. Complainant claims, and the Panel presumes, that Respondent receives click-through fees from the hyperlinks. The Panel finds such a use is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <documate.com> domain name. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Respondent registered and uses the <documate.com> domain name to host third-party hyperlinks, including hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel infers that Complainant’s business is disrupted by this redirection of Complainant’s potential customers to Complainant’s competitors. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the <documate.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
As noted above, Complainant alleges, and the Panel presumes, that Respondent commercially benefits from its registration and use of the disputed domain name by receiving click-through fees each time Internet users click on the aforementioned hyperlinks. As Respondent registered the identical <documate.com> domain name for the purpose of posting hyperlinks, the Panel determines that Respondent is attempting to commercially gain by creating confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name. As this is the case, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <documate.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
Complainant alleges that Respondent must have had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant's rights in the DOCUMATE mark prior to registration of the domain names because of Complainant's widespread use of the mark and its trademark registrations with the USPTO. While constructive notice is generally regarded as insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, the Panel here concludes that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's mark and thus registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration)."
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <documate.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: March 1, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page